Wow, Wow ... [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2011-01-21 15:43 (5263 d 08:11 ago) – Posting: # 6474
Views: 30,771

Dear Helmut,

beyond belief for me simple minded but seems definitely TRUE.

Have a look at Figs. 3 and 4 of
Haidar et. al.
Evaluation of a Scaling Approach for the Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs
The AAPS Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, p450-454, 2008
online resource
to see the same behaviour, also for the combined criteria scaled ABE + constraint on point estimate.

See also
Endrenyi, Tothfalusi
Presentation at BASS 2010
Scaled Average bioequivalence: An Approach to Resolve a Difficult Program
page 21-23.

See also Page 28 of that presentation to notice increasing power after CV=30% if point estimator is 1.1, same as we have had here for point estimator = 0.95.
It would be interesting to know how good the real values of the simulated power are in accordance with our naive power calculations, not only the qualitative behaviour.

Seems I had read all this stuff, but never had this figured out well.
What we here see is the mean vs. variance trade-off in the scaled ABE evaluation. Greater differences in the means µTR are allowed with increasing variability to have the same value for the scaled ABE criterion.
Eventually this is one of the sources for introducing the GMR constraint?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,678 registered users;
32 visitors (0 registered, 32 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Philosophy, like medicine, has plenty of drugs, few good remedies,
and hardly any specific cures.    Sebastien-Roch Nicolas de Chamfort

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5